10+ years ago I bought a Beretta a390 in 12ga in a pawn shop, I shoot it well so over the years I have bought a NWTF 12ga & a 20 ga. When the 391 came out I bought a pair & tried them for a year, liked the 390's better so I got rid of the 391's.. When the A400 came out I bought 1 with kickoff & a really nice stock. I shoot it well & it's ok but I'm not in love. This is my turkey,duck, dove, crow & carry up north shotgun. I will never shoot a 12 ga 31/2 shell since I have a 10ga. I really don't like the light weight A400 or the plastic A400. Should I give the A400 another year or go back to my A390's? I use a Winchester 21 when required by the social situation.

When Beretta made the 390`s they did a good job.The 391`s do not hold up as well as the 390`s.I vote for the 390.

I must take exception to the 391 vs. 390 statement. I shoot ~8-10K shells a year at targets in sporting clay competition. Up until 4 years ago all of these were run thru a 391. During this time I conservatly estimate I shoot ~80-90K rounds thru the gun. The only part I ever broke during this time was a conector rod. I replaced the rod and was back and running in less that 5 minutes. Prior to my shooting the 391, I used a 390. With the 390, I experienced numberous hammer brace breakages. The hammer brace replacement takes more time to repair so I eventually started carring an extra trigger. Both guns require routine maintance. I replaced the recoil and hammer spring ~ every 10K rounds. I no longer shoot the 391 as I now shoot and over/under, but the 391 is kept in reserve for a back up gun if ever needed.

Considering they use the same hammer brace, and the trigger groups are almost identical on the 303/390/391, I think it was a fluke. You would be more likely to encounter the twister carrier on the 391 than another broken brace on the 390.

I vote 390, and I have shot the A400 and have an A300 Outlander on order.

I do understand the braces are the same. You can even use the same trigger group from one to the other. I kept the spare trigger group for years before a friend wanted it more than I did. Both guns were cleaned and recoil and hammer springs were changed on a regular ~8-10K schedule. My point was the gas venting system is different for the 390 vs. the 391. There is a difference in the action cycle/timing/harmonics between the two guns, which I believe the 391 "buffers" the cycle better. I also realize the 390 requires less cleaning that the 391. I am specifically talking about the gas venting system on the 391. Lastly in the previously mentioned 391 with 80-90K of shells thru the gun, I never had the twisted carrier syndrome. This came later and was attributed to a change in manufacturing. My daughters and wife all experienced his hitch with later 391 production guns. The original cure was to replace the 391 carrier with a 390 carrier then later a re-bending of the carrier was deemed the cure. I believe you could send in the bent 391 carrier to Beretta and they would send you back a carrier that had the proper bend or twist. The carriers were twisting which caused improper shell alignment when feeding into the chamber. I like the Beretta 390/391 product line, but feel that the 391 was a better gun for my application. You will see the 391's that currently flood the market dry up in the future as there will be no more made. All indications are the 400 will be the semi-auto Beretta workhorse of the future and there are good early reports on the 400.